Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 5 · Section 5
SECT. V.
There may be good aſſurance of the Word of God and its meaning, and of our ſalvation without ſuppoſing the churches infallibility.
H. T. adds, The conſequence is confirmed, becauſe were not the Church infallible in things of faith, we could have no infallible aſſurance at this diſtance, what were the Word of God, what not, or what is the true ſenſe and meaning of any one Book, or Chapter in the whole Bible, nor conſequently of our ſalvation, ſince without faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe God, Heb. 11. 6.
Anſw. H. T. Hath here vented a moſt poyſonous and impious ſpeech, which tends to ruine the Foundation of Chriſtian Faith, and to promote Atheiſm, yea in ſeeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Biſhop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down. For if there be no infallible aſſurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith, what is the Word of God, what not, nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible, then there is no certainty but from the Churches teſtimony of the truth of Chriſtian Religion, and that being queſtioned we have no way to convince an Atheiſt, or Jew, or Ma…om…tan, who deny ſuch in…allibility: nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Tranſubſtantiation to be certain points of Faith, but by the Churches infallibility, that is indeed his own ſaying, in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confeſ…edly ſinfull, and oft times notoriouſly wicked man, and ſo makes not God's authority the formal mo…ive and object of his faith, as H. T. ſaid pag. 58. falſly the Romaniſts do. Beſides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde ſo as none can underſtand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him, of whom, according to H. T. his Doctrine, who ſaith, pag. 202. that ſenſe cannot judge at all of ſubſtance though it be under ſenſible accidents, there is no certainty, whether they be men or not, if we cannot judge of ſubſtance by ſenſe. Surely Chriſt did very ill to direct Infidels to ſearch the Scriptures, John 5. 39 and never to repair to the Church to be reſolved in points of faith, if H. T. ſay true. How much doth he abaſe the credit of the Scripture, who makes it to depend on mens (for ſuch is the Churches pretended infallibility) report, and aſcribes it to Popes and Councils, who do oft contradict themſelves and one another, which is onelyonly to be had from God and his Word? What is this but as in another caſe Tertullian ſaid of the Roman Senates decreeing who ſhould be worſhipped as God, God ſhall not be God unleſs man will, ſo Gods Word ſhall not be his Word unleſs man will. Which is ſo much the worſe in H. T. who Art. 8. aſcribes that aſſurance to unwritten tradition (of which there is no aſſurance but from men confeſſedly fallible, as ſhall be ſhewed Art. 8.) which he denies to be from Scripture, as if the obſcure tradition of unknown perſons from Age to Age were more certain than the great written tradition received from Apoſtles by the whole Church. Beſides, how doth he reckon of all other beſides Popes and Councils, as if they were all idiots and fools, that they can underſtand no Chapter of the Bible without the Pope, who hath been ſometimes altogether unlearned? What Blockheads would he have men think themſelves after all their ſtudy of Languages, and Arts, and of the Scripture, that yet they cannot be certain what is the true ſenſe and meaning of Matth. 4. Acts 8. or any other Chapter in the Bible, unleſs the Church, that is the Pope, tell them? Why do not all their Commentators, and Preachers firſt ask the Pope of the me…ning of the Scripture afore they by writing or preaching take on them to expound it? Why doth not the Pope forbid them to expound till they have conſulted him? Will …e permi… them to teach that of which they have no infallible aſſurance? Why doth he tie men to follow the conſent of Fathers, as Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull did, if the Fathers yield no infallible aſſurance of the true meaning of any Chapter in the Bible without the Churches, that is, the Popes or his Councells infallibility? How did it come to paſs that the Fathers Chryſoſtome, Hi…rome, &c. did ſo well expound the Scriptures as that their conſent muſt be the Rule of modern Expoſition? Did they firſt conſult the Church, or the Church them? Pope Damaſus I believe had more help from Hierome to expound Scripture by, than Hierome from D…m…ſus? Have the Popes any better means to expound Scripture by than the Fathers? or the Fathers than other learned men in theſe days? Wherein did any of the Fathers exceed Cajetan, Arias Monta…us, and ſuch learned Romaniſts or any of all the Popes after the Apoſtles days in ability to open Scripture? Would not ſuch men as theſe ſecretly diſdain and ſmile in ſcorn, if any ſhould prefer any of the beſt Expo…itions of Popes before their own? Will the Janſenians or Molini…s think either the late Pope Innocent or the preſent Pope Alexander more infallible in their E…poſitions than themſelves? I trow not; ſo little is the pretended infallibility of the Church eſteemed, when it toucheth themſelves, however they make a great noiſe of it againſt Proteſtants, yea ſome Papiſts have well preferred the Expoſitions of later Writers before the Fathers, and Councils, and Popes, giving this for a Reaſon, that later Writers have had more help in that they have had their own abilities and diligence to boot for finding the meaning of Scripture, beſides the Fathers Writings, and may ſee farther than they did, as a Childe ſet on a Giants ſhoulder, as Banner did fitly expreſs it Do not at this day the learned Expoſitors reject the Expoſitions of Fathers, and Popes, and Councils? Doth not Maldonat the Jeſuit expreſly reject in his Comment…ry on John 6. 53. the Expoſition of that Verſe by which Pope Innocent, Auguſtine and many of the Fathers following, held the giving the Euchariſt to Infants neceſſary to their ſalvation, which the Council of Tren… it ſelf doth condemn? So ſottiſh a conceit hath H. T. here vented, that doubtleſs none but the ignorant ſort of Popiſh Proſelytes can believe him in, if they do not reſolve not to ſeem to ſee what they do ſee.
But were it granted that the Church were infallible, I would fain know how H. T. can demonſtrate who or which is that Church which is infallible, or give aſſurance at this diſtance from Rome, that this or that point of faith is thus determined by that infallible Church. Will he make every Prieſt, or Legate, or Regiſter of the Pope to be infallible? If not, let him tell me how he is infallibly aſſured that Pope Innocent the third, or the Lat…ran Council did define Tranſubſtantiation, or Pope Leo the tenth and the laſt Lateran Council the Popes Supremacy. If he ſay by univerſal tradition, or the Records which are kept and are to be ſeen, and the agreement of oppoſite parties, (though in the points named there are none of theſe means which do give ſuch aſſurance of thoſe determinations as is given by them of the Scriptures) ſure me thinks H. T. (who makes ſuch determinations to be aſſuredly theirs upon ſuch or the like Reaſons of their credibility) ſhould yield that there is more aſſurance from theſe (without the infallibility of the Church) of the holy Scriptures, being Gods Word, and the true ſenſe and meaning of it. Will H. T. be more unbelieving than a Jew who acknowledgeth the Books of Moſes, the Pſalms, and Prophets, to be Gods Word? Will he not allow that to a Chriſtian which the Jew had, to wit, aſſur…nce infallible, from Micah 5. 2. that the Meſſias …hould be born at Be…hlehem, without the Churches infallibility? Will H. T. think he can make ſuch men as Arias Montanus, or Cardinal Caj…tan, and other learned Romaniſts believe that they are not certain of the Goſpel of Matthew to be Gods Word, or of the true ſenſe and meaning of the third, fourth, fifth, ſixth, ſeventh Chapters thereof, without the Churches declaration? Did they gather their Expoſitions out of Popes Decrees, Canons of Councils, or examine them by them? Does not he know that in many places thoſe and other learned men have interpreted Texts otherwiſe than Popes and Councils approved by him have expounded them? Do not they know that ſuch an attempt would be but an expoſing of Popes and Councils to contempt, and make their Canon Law appear …idiculous? What unmercifulneſs and careleſneſs of mens ſouls is there in Popes, Councils, Churches, if they are infallible, that in the ſpace of ſixteen hundred years they have not given us ſuch a Commentary on the Bible as may take away all doubts from inquiring Chriſtians about the true meaning of the Scripture, and determine all controverſies in points of faith? Sure it's fitter work than to enrich their kindred, advance baſe ſons, give audience to Embaſſadours▪ over-aw Princes and Emperours, ſubdue the holy Land. About which Popes and Councils have waſted a world of blood and treaſure, when perhaps one Proteſtant or Popiſh commentator hath profitably illuſtrated the whole Bible. Why doth H. T. with his collegues, if they believe what he ſaith of the infallibility of the church to be true, petition the Pope to do this, or call a council, and at laſt together do it? To what purpoſe ſhould any elſe but Popes and councils ſtudy the Scripture, compare copies, reviſe Tranſlations, examine Interpretation, if there be no aſſurance in points of faith of the meaning of the Scripture, without the churches infallibility? But alas! how far from infallibility Popes are, and of all men the unfitteſt to do any thing in this kinde, the ſhamefull diſagreement between Pope Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth their Editions of the vulgar Latin Bible doth abundantly declare, as may be ſeen in Dr. James his Bellum Papale; whereby it may be perceived how miſerably and perpetually the ſouls of Chriſtians muſt fluctuate and be toſſed up and down, and at laſt drowned, if they have no aſſurance of the meaning of Scripture, but from this pretended infallibility of the church, which is no better to ſtay a Soul than an anchor of cork to ſtay a ſhip. I abhor therefore juſtly this blaſphemous ſpeech of H. T. whereby the ſouls of men muſt be brought to waver in faith, if they receive it, and not onelyonly ſinfull, but alſo the weakeſt and worſt of men (for ſuch they confeſs many of the Popes have been) idolized by aſcribing that to them which is proper onelyonly to him who cannot be deceived, nor deceive. And I proteſt, that ſhould the Pope and his Conſiſtory, or general Council, and all the Churches of the World conſpire together to ſay, that the Books of Moſes, the Prophets, the Pſalms, of the four Evangeliſts, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and John, are not the Word of God, yet I am aſſured not onelyonly by tradition of the Jews and Chriſtians, but alſo by the very confeſſions of Adverſaries, and chiefly by the matter of them, which ſhews it ſelf to come from God, the Spirit of God giving me a diſcerning underſtanding thereof, that they are the Word of God, and that the meaning of them is in the main points of faith, as the Articles of the Creed expreſs concerning one God and one Lord, his Incarnation, Preaching, Crucifying, Death, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion, coming to Judgement, the holy Spirit, the Church of God, forgiveneſs of ſins by faith in Chriſt, Reſurrection of the body, and life eternal: which I know by underſtanding the meaning of the words, and thereby am aſſured that neither is the Popes Supremacy, nor his and his Councils infallibility, nor his power of granting Abſolutions, and Indulgences by his Bull, nor the Tranſubſtantiation of Bread into Chriſt's Fleſh, nor the worſhipping of Images, nor a Purgatory fire after Death in a part of Hell, nor communion under one kinde, nor Invocation of dead Saints and holy Angels, nor Prayer in an unknown Tongue, nor Juſtification by Works, nor good Works meriting eternal life, of condignity taught in them. And if I did think I were to doubt of any of theſe Aſſertions I ſhould turn Sceptick, and doubt whether there were a Moſes, or David, or Solomon, or Mahomet, whether I knew the meaning of their words, yea whether there be ſuch a City as Rome or Trent, ſuch a man as the Pope, ſuch a Council as the Tridentin, ſuch Canons as are ſaid to be theirs, or ſuch a Creed as is ſaid to be by Pope Pius the fourth required to be confeſſed by Romaniſts, or that the meaning were as H. T. conceives; in a word, I ſhould begin to doubt whether I hear what I hear, ſhould affirm any thing, make any Confeſſion of Faith, but think my ſelf to be in a Dream when I write, talk, eat, drink, hear, or do any acts of a living waking man.
As for aſſurance of our ſalvation, the denial of which H. T. counts an abſurdity, I am glad to read it, and that thereby he gives ſome occaſion to queſtion whether he believes the Doctrine of the Trent Council, Seſſ 6. chap. 9. That no man can know by certainty of Faith, which cannot be falſe, that he hath obtained the grace of God. But for my part, as I know that the Doctrine of the Romaniſts is inconſiſtent with it ſelf, when they teach that the Prieſts Abſolution and miniſtring Sacraments doth give infallibly Grace and Remiſſion of Sins, and yet that a man cannot be certain with certainty of faith that he hat… obtained Grace. So I am inf…llibly aſſured without any Popes, or Councils, or Churches determination of my ſalvation through faith in Chriſt Jeſus by the Spirit of adoption, and hope to pleaſe God by faith in Chriſt, though I reject Popes, Councils, Churches, Decrees, or Canons, which are not from the holy Scripture, but unwritten tradition or invention of men, many of them being moſt fooliſh and ridiculous toys and abuſes of Scripture, more like Mahome…'s Alcoran, than the Oracles of God.